RE: 2012 Elections results finally in US officially applies 4 Banana Republic status @ UN
January 8, 2013 at 10:36 am
(January 7, 2013 at 7:28 am)Tiberius Wrote:(January 7, 2013 at 7:13 am)The_Germans_are_coming Wrote: All in all, I have no problem with your proposal. But the "redistribution" of the votes is the only thing on which I have doughts.
If this process is not done by the electorate by giving those who voted D the chance to vote again for any candidate except D.
That is how it works though. By ranking the candidates, you are effectively saying "I'm voting for D, but if D doesn't get through, I want to vote for A, and if A doesn't get through, I want to vote for...etc."
Ranking has the advantage of allowing only one election, rather than having multiple elections as France does (which costs far more money). If you think about it, since no candidates can join the election between rounds, each subsequent round will have the same candidates as the last, minus one.
Indeed, if we were to separate voting out so that each round had a new vote, then it would re-introduce the problem of tactical voting, with people able to know the percentage distributions from the last rounds, and altering their vote accordingly.
I see the benefit of your system in a presidential election. But the voting part should be left to the voters and votes shouldn`t be redestributed by a post election administrative body.
If the ballot gives the opertunity to vote croos-party-lines in order to rank candidates it seems to be very usefull to me.
But I am still a bit uncomfortable with cross-party voting, even in a ranking system.
Quote:How? There is one election, rather than two (or more). If votes are computerized, the result can be generated in a very short amount of time. It's actually a very very short election process when done properly.
The voting count could take longer and the arrangement of who voted whom.
I would have to see an example of where it is done this way to be certain.
